I don't know where to begin with this one. The reader says the Saker is misrepresenting certain things in his article but then he provides examples that weren't even talked about in the article. Then on top of that at least in one case the reader states something that is totally inaccurate.

First of all the Saker has acknowledged repeatedly the issue about NATO and the US breaking their promise to not expand eastward after the fall of the USSR so I'm not sure where the reader get's what he talks about. Anything to the contrary wasn't mentioned in the article. Secondly the reader mentions that in the context of the Minsk Accords - which had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of NATO expansion. Those accords were about Ukraine giving the Donbass Republics autonomy.

The Saker has also repeatedly talked about the genocidal shelling and civilian deaths in the Donbass but, again, this was not discussed in the article so where is that comment coming from? Where is the Saker not factual about that?

If you're going to make derogatory comments about an author at least keep to the subject matter of the article and get your facts straight! Nothing in that article by the Saker is non-factual.

SC

: (Thanks, m. :)

: Reader m. writes: =====

: Only problem with NATO making strikes against Russia.
: (1) When the Berlin Wall fell, there was an agreement NATO
: would never go into eastern Europe. Minsk accords.

: One can google and see that NATO and the west broke their word
: to even be fighting Russia in the Ukrainian proxy war.

: In 2014, the CIA went into Ukraine and deposed their natural
: elected leader and installed a puppet. Puppet immediately
: began shelling his OWN PEOPLE. 8000 dead 32000 injured.

: Don't know where Saker got his facts but they bear no
: resemblance to reality.

: =====